The plaintiff seeks the eviction of the 1st defendant and all those claiming occupation through him from residential premises known as Number 2312 Msasa Drive , Marlborough, Harare ‘hereinafter referred to as the property’ . He also seeks costs of suit on an attorney and client scale. When the1st defendant received the eviction summons, he entered appearance to defend and filed a plea. Subsequently an application for joinder of the 2nd defendant was made and granted. The 2nd defendant also opposed the claim. Although the plaintiff seeks no order as against the 2nd defendant, the 2nd defendant was joined to... More
The applicant herein is a limited liability company incorporated in the United Kingdom. The three respondents companies are incorporated in Zimbabwe. BP Africa Limited (BP Africa) and Shell Petroleum Company Limited (Shell Petroleum) are corporate entities based in the United Kingdom. They are equal shareholders in both the second and third respondents, while the latter companies are equal shareholders in the first respondent. More
The applicant approached this court on an urgent basis seeking the relief for the return of motor vehicles based on the principles of spoliation order or vindicatory action. The applicant’s relief was couched in the following way:
“1. The 1st up to 199th respondents shall:-
1.1 In respect of unloaded and empty vehicles constituting horses and trailers belonging to the applicant which are in their possession forthwith return such vehicles to the applicant’s premises at No. 116 Dagenham Road, Willowvale, Harare upon the service of this order on the 200threspondent or their legal practitioners.
1.2 In respect of loaded vehicles... More
This case has been triggered by the developments in a case involving the respondent in the Magistrates Court which was heard and concluded in favour of the respondent on 11 October 2011. The lower court case bears reference number MC 16435/11. More
Applicant seeks an order declaring two agreements of sale of land between itself and first respondent invalid. It also prays for the refund of purchase price in the sum of US$220,000. The application is resisted by first and fourth respondents. The rest of the respondents elected to stay out of the broil. I will advert to the role and relevance of the respective parties as the judgment unfolds. More
